Departmental Food

William Bain: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if she will estimate the proportion of the seafood procured for her Department that (a) was on the Marine Conservation Society’s list of fish to avoid and (b) complied with sustainability standards indicated by inclusion in either the Marine Conservation Society’s list of fish to eat or by the list of fish species certified by the Marine Stewardship Council in (i) 2010 and (ii) 2011 to date.

David Jones: The Wales Office has no in-house catering facilities and does not source food.

Departmental Official Hospitality

Kevin Brennan: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales which hon. Members of each political party were invited to the Secretary of State's St David's Day reception at Gwydyr house on 1 March 2011.

Cheryl Gillan: The Wales Office’s traditional St David’s Day reception has long been used to celebrate our national day and to bring together representatives of Welsh society to build relationships that will potentially bring great benefits to Wales. Representatives of key employers and the big society were invited, along with Members of Parliament and peers of all the main political parties. The estimated cost to the public purse from the event is £780, excluding VAT.
	The following hon. Members were invited:
	Glyn Davies MP
	Brooks Newmark MP
	Guto Bebb MP
	Alun Cairns MP
	Stephen Crabb MP
	David Davies MP
	Jonathan Evans MP
	Simon Hart MP
	Roger Williams MP
	Mark Williams MP
	Jenny Willott MP
	Peter Hain MP
	Owen Smith MP
	Elfyn Llwyd MP
	Mark Prisk MP
	Vince Cable MP

Fishing Catches: EU Action

William Bain: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what steps she plans to take on fish discards and by-catch following the EU high level meeting of 1 March 2011 on fisheries; and if she will make a statement.

Richard Benyon: holding answer 7 March 2011
	I have made clear that tackling discards must be a priority for common fisheries policy (CFP) reform, and I am delighted that at the high level meeting on discards the EU Commission, and other members states, were able to agree on this too. At the event, the UK, Germany, France and Denmark also took the step of signing a declaration calling for serious reform of the CFP, making the reduction of discards a high priority, while securing improved management of fish stocks and the prosperity of our fishing industry.
	The UK is committed to tackling discards, and will use the momentum created by the event and the declaration to continue to influence and shape reform—in doing so we will use the crucial evidence gathered from the UK’s discard reduction work to make sure that the right solutions are taken forward.
	The UK is clear, however, that it will not just wait for the reform of common fisheries policy; discard reductions must be delivered now. We have already made excellent progress with initiatives such as project 50%, which saw discards in the south west sole fishery reduced by 52%. In 2011, we are expanding our catch quota scheme to more vessels and species, as well as working to encourage consumption of underutilized species that are presently discarded.

Government Departments: Sustainable Development

William Bain: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs when she plans to publish the ministerial governance arrangements to oversee the Government’s performance on sustainable development.

James Paice: On 28 February 2011, Government published their vision for mainstreaming sustainable development which consists of providing ministerial leadership and
	oversight, leading by example, embedding sustainable development into policy, and transparent and independent scrutiny. It can be viewed online at:
	http://sd.defra.gov.uk/documents/mainstreaming-sustainable-development.pdf
	The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs will sit on the key domestic policy Cabinet committees, including the Economic Affairs Committee, to promote the Government’s commitment to sustainability across policy making.
	We will measure and report our progress through a new set of indicators on sustainable development, building on past experience of sustainable development and wellbeing measures and linking with developing national and international initiatives, including plans announced in November 2010 to measure the nation’s wellbeing.
	The Environmental Audit Committee will play a role in holding the Government to account with a renewed commitment to scrutinise the appraisal of the Government’s policies and our new overall approach.
	A Ministerial Steering Group will oversee delivery of the new Commitments for greening Government’s Operations and Procurement. All Departments will need to submit plans for delivering these commitments to the Cabinet Office, which will co-ordinate performance management of pan-government delivery and publish regular updates on progress to ensure we can be held to account by the public.

Noise: Nuisance

David Evennett: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what recent representations she has received on noise nuisance issues.

Richard Benyon: A number of representations have been received recently regarding noise nuisance. Specifically, in December and January DEFRA received 19 and 12 letters respectively from members of the public and external organisations on noise nuisance with subject matters ranging from noise from gas guns to low frequency ‘hum’. A small number of parliamentary questions on this issue have also been received.

Rural Payments Agency: Operating Costs

Mary Creagh: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs to which uses the Rural Payments Agency has put the funding allocated to it by her Department to assist with running costs in 2010-11.

James Paice: holding answer 8 March 2011
	The Rural Payments Agency is a major delivery body for the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA), providing a range of services in support of DEFRA’s objectives of encouraging a thriving farming and food sector and strong rural communities. The Agency manages a wide range of common agricultural policy (CAP) schemes including the single payment scheme, internal market schemes covering dairy products, crops, fruits and vegetables, external trade measures covering export refunds, import and export licenses and milk quotas. The agency also carries out a wide range of inspections on farms and at abattoirs, factories, ports,
	airports and markets to ensure CAP scheme rules are met and that claims for payment are valid. The agency is also responsible for monitoring cattle movements throughout the UK.

Rural Payments Agency: Operating Costs

Mary Creagh: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how much of her Department’s EU dairy fund has been paid out (a) by the Rural Payments Agency and (b) through each of the devolved Administrations to date.

James Paice: holding answer 2 March 2011
	The Rural Payments Agency (RPA) paid out £26,563,99.65 to 15,689 eligible dairy producers across the United Kingdom from the EU dairy fund. All eligible producers have been paid.
	In agreement with the devolved Administrations, RPA made all the payments. £2,571,941.28 was paid to producers in Scotland, £2,980,000.97 to producers in Wales and £3,686,613.89 to producers in Northern Ireland.

Towards a Green Economy

William Bain: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what recent discussions she has had with the Chancellor of the Exchequer on the Government’s policy on the recommendations of the UN Environment Programme report, Towards a Green Economy.

James Paice: DEFRA Ministers have had no discussions to date with the Chancellor of the Exchequer on the recommendations issued last week.

Air Force: Redundancy

Kevan Jones: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence 
	(1)  how many Royal Air Force personnel not deployed on operations, recently returned from operations and preparing to deploy on operations are in the pool of personnel considered for the redundancies announced on 1 March 2011;
	(2)  what estimate he has made of the number of Royal Air Force personnel who will volunteer for redundancy as part of the programme of reductions announced on 1 March 2011.

Nick Harvey: The information requested is not available at this time.
	Some 4,350 service personnel will be eligible for redundancy in tranche one of the RAF redundancy programme. Personnel within this group who are engaged in combat operations for which they are in receipt of operational allowance, within six months of deploying on those operations, or recovering from operations on the day the redundancy notices are issued, will not be
	considered for redundancy unless they have applied for voluntary redundancy. The sift to remove the individuals who fall into these categories will not be completed until mid-August.
	No estimate has been made of the number of RAF personnel who will volunteer for redundancy as part of the RAF redundancy programme as this will depend on the personal choices made by the individuals concerned.

Sea Rescue

Ben Wallace: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence 
	(1)  how many (a) RAF and (b) Royal Navy pilots are assigned to search and rescue duties, excluding those assigned for training purposes; and from which bases such pilots operate;
	(2)  which helicopters are deployed to carry out search and rescue tasks in the UK; and from which bases such helicopters operate.

Nick Harvey: The RAF provide search and rescue (SAR) capability from six UK bases using the Sea King Mk3/3a helicopters: RAF Valley, Wattisham airfield, Defence School of Transport (DST) Leconfield, RAF Lossiemouth, RAF Boulmer and Royal Marines Base (RMB) Chivenor. The Royal Navy provide SAR cover
	from Gannet SAR Flight (Glasgow Prestwick International airport) and Royal Naval Air Station Culdrose using the Sea King HU Mk5 helicopter. The Maritime and Coastguard Agency provides SAR capability from bases at Stornoway, Sumburgh, Portland and Lee-on-Solent, using AgustaWestland AW139 and Sikorsky S92 helicopters.
	The number of RAF and Royal Navy pilots assigned to SAR duties and the bases from which they operate are shown in the following table.
	
		
			 Service Base Number of pilots 
			 RAF UK (1)71 
			 Royal Navy UK 20 
			 (1) RAF pilots are also stationed in Cyprus and on detachment to the Falkland Islands.

Driving Offences: Insurance

David Lammy: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what recent meetings he has had with the Motor Insurance Bureau on the number of uninsured drivers.

Michael Penning: The Secretary of State for Transport has not had any meetings with the Motor Insurers’ Bureau (MIB). Motor insurance is one of my responsibilities. I have met with the MIB and have visited their headquarters in Milton Keynes.

Driving Standards Agency

Madeleine Moon: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what proportion of the work carried out by the Driving Standards Agency was undertaken by the offices in (a) Newcastle, (b) Nottingham and (c) Cardiff in the latest period for which figures are available; and if he will make a statement.

Michael Penning: The Driving Standards Agency (DSA) cannot accurately proportion the total of work carried out between its administrative offices in Newcastle, Nottingham and Cardiff. Some of the functions at each site are different and not comparable.
	The number of staff based in each office at 1 January 2011 was:
	Newcastle—170 to 180
	Nottingham—350 to 360
	Cardiff—86 (plus one member of staff on career break)
	Figures for Newcastle and Nottingham are approximations owing to the fact that some staff are based between the two offices.

Heathrow Airtrack

Kwasi Kwarteng: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what plans he has for the future of the Heathrow Airtrack; and what timetable he has set for its implementation.

Theresa Villiers: holding answer 7 March 2011
	The Heathrow Airtrack project is being promoted by Heathrow Airport Ltd—a subsidiary of BAA. Accordingly, plans for the future of the project and timescales for implementation are a matter for BAA.

London and Southeastern Railway: Passengers

Andrew Gwynne: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what the rate of cancellation of passenger rail services operated by the Southeastern franchise was in each of the last five reporting periods.

Theresa Villiers: holding answer 2 March 2011
	The information requested is given in the following table:
	
		
			 Southeastern cancellations 
			 Reporting period Percentage cancelled 
			 August/September 2010 0.9 
			 September/October 2010 1.6 
			 October/November 2010 0.6 
			 November/December 2010 2.3 
			 December/January 2011 2.6 
			 Note: Period 10 2010-11 (12 December 2010 to 9 January 2011) is the latest data available. Rail industry periods are four weeks in length.

Railways: Construction

Christopher Pincher: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will estimate the annual cost to the public purse of maintenance of the High Speed Two route after completion.

Philip Hammond: Estimates of the costs of operating and maintaining both the proposed Y high speed rail network, and the proposed initial London-West Midlands HS2 line, are included in the “Economic Case for HS2” which is available on the consultation website:
	http://highspeedrail.dft.gov.uk

Roads: Safety

Teresa Pearce: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport whether he has assessed the merits of setting targets for the reduction of child road deaths and serious injuries in the forthcoming road safety strategic framework.

Michael Penning: The UK already has some of the safest roads in the world, but the coalition is considering how to make them even safer for all road users. The new strategic framework for road safety will set out the Government’s vision for road safety, national measures, and how we will work with others to achieve this. We have been discussing this with stakeholders and we intend to publish in the near future.

Taxis: Road Traffic Offences

Mike Freer: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport for what reason the owners of private hire vehicles are able to transfer liability for parking control notices (PCNs) to the driver at the time of offence but are not able to do so in respect of PCNs issued for bus lane violation.

Norman Baker: Regulations made by the Government for parking enforcement in England (including London) under the Traffic Management Act 2004 and for bus lanes enforcement in England outside London under the Transport Act 2000, enable the keeper of a vehicle that was, at the material time, hired from a vehicle hire company under a hiring agreement, to pass responsibility for the payment of any penalty charge notice (PCN) incurred to the hirer.
	The legislation that was sponsored by London local authorities to enable enforcement of bus lanes in London—the London Local Authorities Act 1996—does not provide an equivalent power to the vehicle keeper. The Mayor of
	London, along with the London local authorities, has policy responsibility for this locally-sponsored legislation. I have drawn this exchange to the attention of the Mayor.

Transport: Finance

Nicholas Dakin: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport 
	(1)  what capital allocations he expects to make in respect of each local authority scheme in the supported group in each of the next four years; and what estimate he has made of the proportion of the cost of each such scheme expected to be met by central Government contributions;
	(2)  what criteria he plans to use to determine which local authority major schemes from the development group will be funded by central Government;
	(3)  what mechanisms will be in place for local residents to contribute to the process by which local authority major schemes in the (a) supported, (b) development and (c)  pre-qualification group are (i) revised and (ii) assessed;
	(4)  what his most recent estimate is of (a) the monetary value of (i) central Government, (ii) local authority, (iii) private finance initiative and (iv) developer contributions and (b) total scheme construction cost in respect of each major scheme in the (A) supported, (B) development and (C) pre-qualification groups.

Norman Baker: holding answer 12 November 2011
	The agreed Department for Transport contribution to the supported pool schemes, following the announcement made on 4 February 2011, is shown in the following table along with the expected allocation of spend over each of the next four years, the total cost of each scheme, and the proportion of this to be provided by Department for Transport.
	
		
			  DFT contribution (£   million)   
			 Scheme 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 Total Total cost (£ million) Proportion of funding from DFT (   %   ) 
			 Thornton to Switch Island Link (Sefton) — 7.0 7.5 — 14.5 18.6 78 
			 Taunton Northern Inner Distributor Road — 8.0 6.1 1.0 15.2 21.7 70 
			 Heysham to M6 Link Road — 27.4 45.9 37.1 110.9 123.3 90 
			 Leeds Station Southern Access — 1.9 10.5 — 12.4 14.4 86 
			 East of Exeter 8.8 1.6 — — 10.4 14.4 72 
			 A57 M1 to Todwick Crossroads (Rotherham) — 8.3 3.5 — 11.8 14.7 80 
			 Mansfield Public Transport Interchange 0.7 5.8 0.7 — 7.2 8.9 81 
			 Ipswich Fit for the 21st Century — 9.3 8.9 0.1 18.3 21.5 85 
			 Midland Metro — 26.5 48.9 0.0 75.4 129.2 58 
		
	
	The expected spend on the Heysham to M6 Link Road scheme also includes £0.5 million after 2014-15.
	The remaining scheme in the supported pool, Mersey Gateway Bridge, is not included in this table as the funding package for the scheme, including toll revenues and private finance is being reviewed with the promoter. No other scheme in the supported or development pool is currently proposed to be taken forward under the private finance initiative.
	The criteria to be used in the prioritisation process for schemes in the development pool will be made on a basis that is consistent with Government's proposals to reform the way decisions are made on which transport projects to prioritise. We will refine the precise methodology to be used but is likely to include the following criteria, as stated in the document ‘Investment on Local Major Transport Schemes: Update’:
	Value for money;
	The proportion of overall funding coming from non-Department for Transport sources;
	Deliverability;
	Strategic importance;
	A consideration of modal and regional balance across the programme.
	We have published the Expressions of Interest already received from the local authority promoters and we welcome comments from any interested parties including local residents. We will also publish the Best and Final Funding Bids once they are received on 9 September and will similarly invite comments on those. The local authority promoters also have a responsibility to consult residents and stakeholders when developing individual scheme proposals at appropriate stages. The public also have an opportunity to make representations whenever planning permission, scheme orders or compulsory purchase orders are applied for.
	The best estimates of the total construction cost and the central Government, local authority, and third party contributions in respect of each major scheme in the development pool, including those promoted from the pre-qualification pool, are as set out in the Expressions of Interest received from the local authority promoters in December 2010 and January 2011. These are available on the DFT website at:
	http://www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/regional/ltp/major/transportschemesupdate/
	The Department is challenging local authorities to submit revised bids for development pool schemes by September 2011 that further reduce the call on central Government funds.

Public Expenditure

Catherine McKinnell: To ask the Attorney-General pursuant to the answer of 2 February 2011, Official Report, column 805W on public expenditure, by how much the Crown Prosecution Service plans to reduce expenditure on (a) staff, (b) accommodation, (c) IT, (d) prosecution and (e) general administrative costs in each year of the Comprehensive Spending Review period.

Dominic Grieve: The following table shows by how much the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) intends to reduce its expenditure in each of the main expenditure areas in each year of the comprehensive spending review period.
	
		
			 CPS cumulative savings over SR10 
			 £ million 
			  2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 
			 Staff -15.5 -36.5 -57.5 -74.1 
			 Accommodation -2.3 -3.6 -3.6 -4.0 
			 IT -2.0 -6.7 -11.0 -11.0 
			 Prosecution -6.7 -6.5 -6.4 -21.4 
			 General administrative costs -1,4 -3.0 -4.5 -10.0 
		
	
	The Department's expenditure reduction plans are kept under continuous review and the value of individual components may change over time.

British Sky Broadcasting

Jonathan Reynolds: To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Olympics, Media and Sport what recent representations he has received on the proposed takeover of BSkyB by News International.

Jeremy Hunt: I refer the hon. Member to the statement I made to the House on 3 March 2011, Official Report, columns 518-19, setting out that I propose to accept undertakings from News Corporation on their proposed merger with BSkyB. I have launched a consultation as to whether the undertakings in lieu offered by News Corporation are sufficient to remedy, mitigate or prevent the public interest concerns in relation to media plurality raised by this merger. As part of that process I have published all relevant documentation on my Department’s website:
	www.culture.gov.uk

Departmental Expenditure

Stephen Barclay: To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Olympics, Media and Sport what expenditure (a) his Department and (b) each public body sponsored by his Department incurred on engaging external audit services in each of the last three years; and to which service providers such payments were made in each year. [Official Report, 15 March 2011, Vol. 525, c. 5MC.]

John Penrose: The Department for Culture, Media and Sport is audited by the National Audit Office (NAO). The NAO charge notional fees for the audit of central Government Departments and Executive Agencies. There is therefore no expenditure for the external audit of the Department’s Resource Accounts and The Royal Parks Accounts.
	The Secretary of State for Culture, Olympics, Media and Sport has management and control responsibilities for the National Lottery Distribution Fund (NLDF) and the Olympic Lottery Distribution Fund (OLDF). Both funds are audited by the NAO and charged a hard fee in cash as set out in the following table.
	
		
			 £ 
			 Body Auditor 2009-10 2008-09 2007-08 
			 Department For Culture, Media and Sport (NLDF) National Audit Office 26,500 28,900 24,000 
			 Department For Culture, Media and Sport (OLDF) National Audit Office 26,500 28,900 24,000 
		
	
	Most of the Department’s arm’s length bodies are audited by the NAO and are charged a hard fee in cash. The two bodies audited by private firms are companies as well as being charities, and have not been designated for audit by the Comptroller and Auditor General under the Government Resources and Accounts Act 2000.
	The following table sets out the bodies, their auditors and the fees charged as disclosed in the bodies’ annual reports and accounts.
	
		
			 £ 
			 Body Auditor 2009-10 2008-09 2007-08 
			 Arts Council England(1)  National Audit Office 68,000 75,000 60,000 
			 Arts Council England Lottery Account National Audit Office 62,000 71,000 61,000 
			 Big Lottery Fund National Audit Office 106,000 105,000 110,000 
			 British Library National Audit Office 53,000 52,000 50,000 
			 British Museum National Audit Office 59,000 50,000 47,000 
			 Commission for Architecture and the Built Environment National Audit Office 28,000 27,000 26,090 
			 English Heritage National Audit Office 74,000 69,000 61,000 
			 Football Licensing Authority National Audit Office 8,900 6,900 6,200 
			 Gambling Commission National Audit Office 39,000 47,000 33,000 
			 Geffrye Museum National Audit Office 9,000 7,500 6,400 
			 Horniman Museum BDO Stoy Hayward LLP 13,100 13,825 12,450 
			 Horserace Betting Levy Board National Audit Office 45,000 38,000 35,000 
			 Imperial War Museum National Audit Office 41,000 36,000 34,000 
			 Museums, Libraries and Archives Council National Audit Office 63,000 93,000 58,000 
			 Museum of Science and Industry in Manchester Beever and Struthers 9,500 9,500 11,410 
			 National Gallery National Audit Office 40,000 38,650 37,165 
			 National Heritage Memorial Fund (NHMF)(1)  National Audit Office 10,000 9,000 8,000 
			 Heritage Lottery Fund (maintained by NHMF) National Audit Office 42,000 42,000 36,000 
			 National Lottery Commission National Audit Office 25,000 24,000 22,000 
			 National Museums Liverpool National Audit Office 54,000 50,000 45,000 
			 National Maritime Museum National Audit Office 36,000 35,000 33,000 
		
	
	
		
			 National Museum of Science and Industry National Audit Office 92,000 92,000 87,000 
			 National Portrait Gallery National Audit Office 35,000 32,000 31,000 
			 Natural History Museum National Audit Office 49,000 51,000 46,000 
			 Olympic Delivery Authority National Audit Office 238,000 212,000 158,000 
			 Olympic Lottery Distributor National Audit Office 13,000 13,000 12,000 
			 Public Lending Right Central Fund Account National Audit Office 18,000 17,500 17,000 
			 Royal Armouries National Audit Office 36,000 36,000 41,000 
			 Sir John Soane’s Museum National Audit Office 14,000 14,000 8,250 
			 Sport England National Audit Office 102,000 80,000 76,000 
			 Sport England Lottery Distribution Fund National Audit Office 55,000 52,000 47,500 
			 Tate National Audit Office 49,000 42,000 40,000 
			 UKAnti-Doping(2)  National Audit Office 17,000 n/a n/a 
			 UK Film Council(1)  National Audit Office 33,000 33,000 21,000 
			 UK Film Council Lottery Distribution Fund National Audit Office 24,000 24,000 20,000 
			 UK Sport(1)  National Audit Office 45,000 45,000 33,000 
			 UK Sport Lottery Distribution Account National Audit Office 28,000 28,000 26,000 
			 Victoria and Albert Museum National Audit Office 45,000 45,000 37,000 
			 VisitBritain National Audit Office 57,000 55,000 52,000 
			 Wallace Collection National Audit Office 23,000 22,000 22,000 
			 (1) Under the National Lottery etc Act 1993, Arts Council England, CE, NHMF, Sport England, UK Film Council and UK Sport are required to produce separate Lottery Distribution accounts. These are audited separately and shown as separate lines from the parent body’s accounts. (2) UK Anti-Doping has only been in independent operation since 2009-10. Note: The Big Lottery Fund is a Lottery body but has its Lottery income consolidated with its other figures.

Departmental Procurement

Dominic Raab: To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Olympics, Media and Sport what the cost to the public purse was of the (a) procurement and (b) outsourcing function of (i) his Department and (ii) the (A) agency and (B) non-departmental public bodies for which he is responsible in the last financial year for which figures are available.

John Penrose: The Department for Culture, Media and Sport has a combined procurement and outsourcing function. During the financial year 2009-10 the cost to the public purse, which includes office space, utilities, IT and salaries, was £223,274.
	During the financial year 2009-10 the Royal Parks agency procurement cost was £99,743. They do not have a function which specifically deals with outsourcing.
	The Department does not collate this information for its arm’s length bodies. Accordingly, I have asked their chief executives to write to my hon. Friend the Member for Esher and Walton.
	Copies of the replies will be placed in the Libraries of both Houses.

Responsible Gambling Strategy Board

Philip Davies: To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Olympics, Media and Sport what funding the Gambling Commission has provided for the Responsible Gambling Strategy Board in the latest period for which figures are available.

John Penrose: Under a service level agreement, the Responsible Gambling Strategy Board received £250,000 in 2010-11 from the Gambling Commission in order to provide independent advice on the research, education and treatment elements of the Commission’s responsible gambling strategy.

Sports: Special Educational Needs

Mark Menzies: To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Olympics, Media and Sport what funding his Department provides for sporting organisations for people with special needs.

Hugh Robertson: holding answer 7 March 2011
	UK Sport provides funding and support to elite athletes from six different disability groups in the Paralympic movement, including the recently reinstated intellectual disability group.
	The figures in the table include data on athlete and programme support for all UK Sport funded summer and winter Paralympic sports:
	
		
			  £ 
			 2010-11 grants paid (1)   
			 Summer Paralympics 11,536,190 
			 Winter Paralympics 94,067 
			   
			 Predicted 2011-13 APA and Programme grants   
			 Summer Paralympic 25,215,316 
			 Intellectual Disability 750,000 
			 Winter Paralympic 281,750 
			 (1) Athlete Personal Award (APA) and Programme—includes current planned amount for March 2011. 
		
	
	UK Sport also provides funding to the following partners:
	
		
			 £ 
			 Partner 2010-11 2011-13 
			 UK Sports Association for People with Learning Disability 40,000 75,000 
			 British Paralympic Performance Services 450,000 900,000 
		
	
	A key strand of Sport England's work is to create more opportunities for those with disabilities to participate in sport.
	As part of the Olympic legacy—Places, People, Play, plans are under way for allocating ring-fenced funding of £8 million to support sport participation for disabled people over the next two years. Sport England is also investing £1.54 million per year of Exchequer funding in the English Federation of Disability Sport (EFDS), to support their strategy to increase participation and opportunities for disabled people.
	In addition, Sport England is working closely with EFDS and other national disability sports organisations to agree the most appropriate way to deliver a further investment of £2 million of national lottery funding to help support participation in sport by disabled people.

Sports: Young People

Stephen Pound: To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Olympics, Media and Sport what assessment he has made of recent trends in the level of participation in sport by young people.

Jeremy Hunt: holding answer 3 March 2011
	The previous Government’s 2009/10 PE and Sport survey showed that 55% of young people were doing three hours of school sport, but also showed huge decline in Years 12 and 13 to 23% and 21% respectively.
	Harnessing the power of the Olympic and Paralympic Games, the School Games will give every school and every pupil the opportunity to participate in competitive school sport, inspiring a generation of young people to start a lifetime of sport.

Asylum

Graeme Morrice: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if she will meet representatives of the refugee charity sector in Scotland to discuss the effects of reductions in funding for the UK Border Agency on the asylum system.

Damian Green: The Secretary of State for the Home Department currently has no plans to meet with representatives of the refugee charity sector in Scotland in this regard.
	The UK Border Agency is committed to continuing to work with Voluntary Sector partners. However, asylum intake has reduced significantly since grant payments were first put in place. It is only right that funding is reduced accordingly to reflect this. The grant reduction also reflects the fact that the UK Border Agency’s budget has been cut as part of the Government’s action to reduce the public deficit.

Asylum

Richard Graham: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what proportion of asylum seekers were (a) granted asylum and (b) refused asylum and returned to their home country in each of the last five years.

Damian Green: Information on the outcome of asylum applications is available in Main Table 2.7 of Control of Immigration: Annual Bulletin, United Kingdom 2009, published in August 2010. This publication is available in the Library of the House and the Home Office's Research, Development and Statistics website at:
	http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/immigration-asylum-stats.html
	Data for 2010 will be available in August 2011. A summary is as follows:
	
		
			 Analysis of applications for asylum, excluding dependants, made 2005 to 2009; estimated outcomes, as at May 2010   (1) 
			 Principal applicants 
			  2005 2006 2007 2008 2009   (4) 
			 Total principal applicants 25,710 23,610 23,430 25,930 24,485 
			       
			 Summary of estimated outcomes (including appeal outcomes at IAA/AIT) (2)       
			 Recognised as a refugee and granted asylum as a percentage of total applications (21) (22) (25) (26) (26) 
			 Not recognised as a refugee but granted HP or DL as a percentage of total applications (11) (10) (9) (9) (9) 
			 Refused asylum, HP or DL, or withdrawn by appellant as a percentage of total applications (65) (64) (59) (56) (52) 
			 Cases with decision not known(3) as a percentage of total applications (3) (5) (7) (8) (13) 
			 (1) Figures (other than percentages) rounded to the nearest five (— = 0, * = 1 or 2) and may not sum to the totals shown because of independent rounding. (2) Appeals do not include outcomes of cases reconsidered prior to appeal. Excludes cases which were successful after appeal to the Immigration Appeal Tribunal/Immigration Appeal Review or higher courts. (3) No confirmation of a decision had been received when statistics were compiled on 10 May 2010. Includes appeals awaiting an outcome. (4) Provisional figures. 
		
	
	The proportion of refused applicants does not include outcomes of cases reconsidered prior to appeal, and they also may include cases that were successful after appeal to the Immigration Appeal Tribunal/Immigration Appeal Review or higher courts.
	Information on those refused asylum and returned to their home country is not available and could be obtained only by the detailed examination of management information at disproportionate cost.

Departmental Procurement

Dominic Raab: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the cost to the public purse was of the (a) procurement and (b) outsourcing function of (i) her Department and (ii) the (A) agency and (B) non-departmental public body for which she is responsible in the last financial year for which figures are available.

Damian Green: The cost of procurement functions in the Home Department, its agencies and the non-departmental public bodies (NDPBs) is provided in the following table. Outsourcing functions are not separately identified and the cost of such functions, if relevant, is included within the figures provided in the table.
	
		
			 Year ended 31 March 2010 Cost of the procurement function   (£000) 
			 Home Office 3,150 
			 Criminal Records Bureau 282 
			 Identity and Passport Service 3,542 
			 UK Border Agency 4,900 
			 National Police Improvement Agency (inward and outward facing procurement activities) 4,510 
			 Serious Organised Crime Agency 1,928 
			 Independent Police Complaints Commission 159 
			 Independent Safeguarding Authority 69 
			 Total 18,540

Detention Centres: Children

Jim Cunningham: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department 
	(1)  what assessment she has made of steps taken by immigration detention facilities to improve the family-friendly nature of their institutions;
	(2)  what has been her Department's expenditure on steps to make immigration detention centres more family-friendly in the latest period for which figures are available.

Damian Green: The Government are committed to ending the detention of children for immigration purposes. On 16 December 2010 we published our plans for doing this, including the immediate closure to children of the family unit at Yarl's Wood Immigration Removal Centre.
	A fresh approach to managing family returns is being developed which places greater emphasis on engagement with families and aims to encourage families to leave without the need for enforcement action if they are found to have no legal right to be in the UK.
	Most elements of this new process went live across the UK on 1 March, including the setting up of a new independent Family Returns Panel to advise the UK Border Agency on how to ensure the return of those families who do not take up the opportunities to leave under their own steam. A range of options has been developed to provide sufficient flexibility for a tailored approach to each family.
	As a backstop, we are also developing a new option of pre-departure accommodation for use when other options for ensuring return have failed. This will not look or feel like an immigration removal centre; families will be held in self-contained flats, providing them with independence and privacy, within a large setting, including extensive grounds. It will be run on a care model rather than a secure one and there will be provision for family members to leave the premises after suitable risk assessments. The project to create the pre-departure accommodation has engaged the use of a number of specialist consultants for areas such as surveying and planning. We have so far received invoices for around £65,000.
	The pre-departure accommodation will take a little longer than 1 March to establish so a small number of family rooms will remain available at Tinsley House Immigration Removal Centre in the meantime. Their
	use will be kept to an absolute minimum during this interim period. We do not expect them to be used beyond May for families with children, other than for those few cases of families who are refused entry to the UK at the border and need to be held for a short time while enquiries are made and/or until a return flight can be arranged for them. There may also be the occasional need to use Tinsley for criminal or other high-risk families who could not be accommodated safely in the pre-departure accommodation but this would be rare.
	The family facility at Tinsley House has just been refurbished to create a far more family-friendly environment. This work has cost £1.3 million.
	Both the family unit at Tinsley House and the new pre-departure accommodation will be subject to regular assessments and reporting by UK Border Agency monitors, but also to the oversight and inspection of HM Chief Inspector for Prisons, the Children's Commissioner for England and the Independent Monitoring Board.

Detention Centres: Children

Jim Cunningham: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what support her Department provides to young children detained in the immigration system.

Damian Green: The UK Border Agency takes very seriously its responsibilities towards children. The agency is required under section 55 of the Borders, Citizenship and Immigration Act 2009 to carry out its functions having regard to the need to safeguard and promote the welfare of children in the UK. Statutory guidance has been issued to the agency on how to fulfil this duty and all staff are required to complete training on keeping children safe.
	As part of the Government’s commitment to children, we announced on 16 December 2010 plans to end the detention of families with children for immigration purposes and new processes were rolled out on 1 March to achieve this.
	Special arrangements are also in place for unaccompanied children who arrive in the UK to claim asylum. The children are referred to the nearest local authority immediately on arrival to ensure that they receive the same standard of care and support as any other child in need. Their asylum claims are then considered by specialist case owners with enhanced safeguards to take account of their vulnerability. Even if their asylum claims fail the children are not returned to their countries of origin unless appropriate reception and care arrangements have been put in place.

Detention Centres: Children

Jim Cunningham: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what recent steps she has taken to ensure the welfare of children during the asylum application process.

Damian Green: We are committed to safeguarding the welfare of asylum seeking children who arrive in the UK either unaccompanied or as part of a family group. The UK Border Agency (UKBA) has a statutory duty to safeguard and promote the welfare of children who are in the United Kingdom under section 55 of the Borders, Citizenship and Immigration Act 2009.
	Where a child forms part of an asylum seeking family, further support has been provided to UKBA staff as part of the recent work to end child detention for
	immigration purposes. A new asylum instruction was published on 1 March 2011, providing additional advice on how to process an asylum application made by an adult with at least one child dependant under 18, and how to consider the best interests of the child within that process. Specialist training has also been provided for any asylum case owners who will be required to host family return conferences or family departure meetings, both key stages within the new family returns process which was rolled out nationally on 1 March 2011. A new family key worker pilot based in the north-west region started recently with the aim of providing further practical support for families going through the asylum process.
	There are a considerable number of safeguards in place to protect the welfare of unaccompanied asylum seeking children and these are documented within the ‘processing an asylum application from a child’ guidance. Recent changes include providing further guidance on considering the best interest of the child, the introduction of a standardised welfare pro forma to ensure newly encountered unaccompanied children's physical welfare is properly considered in advance of any interview, as well as piloting a child specific asylum screening form. All unaccompanied children are referred to a local authority as well as the Refugee Council's Children Panel to ensure they obtain appropriate care and advice throughout the asylum process.

Electoral Reform Services Ltd

Daniel Kawczynski: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the monetary value was of contracts her Department placed with Electoral Reform Services Ltd in each year since 2005.

Damian Green: The following table provides spend relating to Electoral Reform Services for financial years 2005 to date.
	The spend data are also shown for two business areas that are no longer part of the Home Office: Communities Group which moved to Department for Communities and Local Government (DCLG) in 2006 and National Offender Management Service (NOMS) which formed part of the new Ministry of Justice (MoJ) in 2007.
	
		
			 Spend (£) 
			 Financial year HO Communities Group NOMS 
			 2005-06 n/a 833.50 1,907.84 
			 2006-07 352.50 n/a 1,549.28 
			 2007-08 n/a n/a n/a 
			 2008-09 n/a n/a n/a 
			 2009-10 1,923.22 n/a n/a 
			 2010-11 1,233.75 n/a n/a 
			 Total 3,509.47 833.50 3,457,12

Entry Clearances: Overseas Students

Keith Vaz: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many student visas were granted to citizens of each non-EU country in each of the 12 months to January 2011.

Damian Green: The following table provides the latest available data, in line with officially published statistics, for the number of student visas granted to applicants of non-EU countries. The data covers the calendar year for 2010.
	
		
			 Main applicant student/tier four stats for 2010, by nationality (issued only), year issued 2010 
			 Nationality Total 
			 Afghanistan 354 
			 Albania 359 
			 Algeria 333 
			 Andorra 2 
			 Angola 233 
			 Antigua and Barbuda 12 
			 Argentina 142 
			 Armenia 104 
			 Australia 1,035 
			 Azerbaijan 432 
			 Bahamas 53 
			 Bahrain 643 
			 Bangladesh 8,989 
			 Barbados 112 
			 Belarus 135 
			 Belize 14 
			 Benin 22 
			 Bhutan 19 
			 Bolivia 44 
			 Bosnia and Herzegovina 53 
			 Botswana 230 
			 Brazil 2,262 
			 British Citizen 8 
			 British Dependent Territories Citizen 2 
			 British National Overseas 1,816 
			 British Overseas Citizen 1 
			 Brunei 1,034 
			 Burkina 10 
			 Burma (Myanmar) 257 
			 Burundi 5 
			 Cambodia 41 
			 Cameroon 665 
			 Canada 3,503 
			 Cape Verde 2 
			 Central African Republic 0 
			 Chad 2 
			 Chile 348 
			 China 44,234 
			 Colombia 3,556 
			 Comoros 4 
			 Congo 15 
			 Costa Rica 25 
			 Croatia 155 
			 Cuba 8 
			 Democratic Republic of Congo 23 
			 Djibouti 4 
			 Dominica 14 
		
	
	
		
			 Dominican Republic 22 
			 East Timor (Timor-Leste) 3 
			 Ecuador 145 
			 Egypt 660 
			 El Salvador 16 
			 Equatorial Guinea 13 
			 Eritrea 7 
			 Ethiopia 80 
			 Fiji 11 
			 Gabon 4 
			 Gambia 181 
			 Ghana 832 
			 Grenada 20 
			 Guatemala 21 
			 Guinea 45 
			 Guinea-Bissau 1 
			 Guyana 31 
			 Haiti 4 
			 Honduras 14 
			 Hong Kong 5,317 
			 Hungary 0 
			 India 42,545 
			 Indonesia 907 
			 Iran 2,483 
			 Iraq 356 
			 Israel 208 
			 Ivory Coast 33 
			 Jamaica 104 
			 Japan 3,760 
			 Jordan 765 
			 Kazakhstan 2,121 
			 Kenya 916 
			 Korea (North) 2 
			 Kosovo 62 
			 Kuwait 1,130 
			 Kyrgyzstan 81 
			 Laos 1 
			 Lebanon 370 
			 Lesotho 17 
			 Liberia 22 
			 Libya 2,440 
			 Macau 165 
			 Macedonia 77 
			 Madagascar 15 
			 Malawi 166 
			 Malaysia 6,284 
			 Maldives 69 
			 Mali 22 
			 Mauritania 9 
			 Mauritius 733 
			 Mexico 1,068 
			 Moldova 64 
			 Monaco 3 
			 Mongolia 135 
			 Montenegro 48 
			 Morocco 490 
			 Mozambique 31 
			 Namibia 30 
			 Nauru 0 
			 Nepal 2,333 
			 New Zealand 212 
			 Nicaragua 8 
			 Niger 6 
		
	
	
		
			 Nigeria 10,948 
			 Oman 645 
			 Pakistan 24,485 
			 Palestinian Authority 2 
			 Panama 21 
			 Papua New Guinea 12 
			 Paraguay 4 
			 Peru 214 
			 Philippines 3,772 
			 Qatar 895 
			 Russia 3,160 
			 Rwanda 58 
			 San Marino 2 
			 Sao Tome And Principe 0 
			 Saudi Arabia 8,090 
			 Senegal 116 
			 Serbia 232 
			 Seychelles 54 
			 Sierra Leone 108 
			 Singapore 1,846 
			 Solomon Islands 1 
			 Somalia 7 
			 South Africa 495 
			 South Korea 6,488 
			 Sri Lanka 7,583 
			 St Kitts and Nevis 12 
			 St Lucia 47 
			 St Vincent 40 
			 Stateless (Art One 1951 Convention) 14 
			 Sudan 188 
			 Surinam 1 
			 Swaziland 13 
			 Switzerland 0 
			 Syria 395 
			 Taiwan 3,535 
			 Tajikistan 40 
			 Tanzania 476 
			 Thailand 5,085 
			 Togo 16 
			 Tonga 3 
			 Trinidad and Tobago 359 
			 Tunisia 57 
			 Turkey 4,212 
			 Turkmenistan 212 
			 Uganda 399 
			 Ukraine 839 
			 United Arab Emirates 913 
			 United Nations 11 
			 United States 14,477 
			 Unspecified Nationality 39 
			 Uruguay 22 
			 Uzbekistan 138 
			 Vanuatu 1 
			 Venezuela 303 
			 Vietnam 2,719 
			 Western Samoa 1 
			 XXB (Refugee 1957 Convention) 8 
			 XXC (Northern Cyprus) 5 
			 XXH (Hong Kong SAL) 80 
			 XXP (Palestinian Stateless) 214 
			 Yemen 159 
		
	
	
		
			 Yugoslavia 5 
			 Zambia 230 
			 Zimbabwe 248 
			 Grand total 253,786